5/14/2010

Something is afoot! A paradox clouds a nation, and, well "let’s not re-litigate the past" cannot hold.

Sure President Obama is a lefty, and a rare lefty who disguises such by wearing his watch as if a righty. Sure he has been maybe the most generous victor to a beaten Democrat opponent ever in our history by offering the Clinton ‘two-fer’ so much political protection and so many opportunities to redeem.

But Tuesday is on local voters minds across battles more pedestrian and community oriented. How can President Obama in a era of - we need to fix the credit card lifestyle of citizens spending as much or more than they earn - by spending more than our nation can raise - help on Tuesday, and still help Clintons at all as these now seem the days we the voters are realizing that we need to "litigate" the Clintons’ years? "All the fault of past eight years of Bush!" cannot hold.

If the Republicans had not been towards earning "the party of no" how much higher would the twarted spending spree have been taken by these Democrats?

President Obama has been too kind to Clintons?

President Obama by asking and near insisting that main stream media avoid "litigating"/"re-litigating" the past has been all too generous and protective of the Clintons? The Clintons have become a paradox.

He cannot stop the public doing their best to litigate around the Clintons’ years now more at fault or even finally just to as at fault as Bush years. The Clintons now are largely doing the opposite of what they were popular for doing in their eight years an intimate two-fer coupled fully in daily decidings of First Family. The Clintons have become a paradox.

What can President Obama do now? What while surrounded by mostly all the same people and experts around The White House that the Clintons would have embraced, if elected. His attempts to offer political cover and protection of distraction from the Clintons’ years are falling off from around the Clintons exposing them and their now paradoxical politics of doing the opposite of what they had been popular for and for such having been wrong?

How do any Democrats "know" now going into Tuesday local decidings what it means to be a Democrat any more?

Will President Obama now have to shake up his "team" and see that a ridding of the "paradox of Clintons" may be his best chance to start anew with a strong "reset"?

Is the international popularity Secretary of State Hillary Clinton been buying around the world easily replaced? Has his Secretary actually gotten America trapped into paying for peace without getting peace? And is such proof she was best kept to limited duties of just matters of State Department? And, that even to an increasing "popularity" from "buying it" sheer "paradox" to/of the Clintons’ eight years of cutting near or over two trillion from national spending?

So the Clintons have been protected by President Obama and look at where that has gotten Dems. So only since Clintons nearly let Saddam Hussein off from all domestic and international prosecution has an American President so "protected" a past "failed" leader?

So the Clintons did the "avoiding" and "inaction" for eight years that President Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech warned of for of serious dangers.

So we are in Afghanistan now with a troubling Taliban and because the Clintons looked the other way with "avoidance and inaction" during their eight years re: Afghanistan. So Al Qaeda was the "international terrorist threat/group" and Taliban just overbearing "local leaders" not up to spead on "Hillary’s" feminist crusade? So Taliban not really a "necessary war" around American’s national security?

So President Bush waded carefully in Afghanistan and traded building schools and roads for access to country of Afghanistan for our troops so they could hunt our enemies in the Al Qaeda training camps hidden around country and mostly populated by those foreigners in Afghanistan.

So with "Hillary" in charge of foreign policy we ended up adding near thirty thousand more troops than Bush had deployed and with them pushed into a chase without coherent foreign policy considerations, and, so today we know Obama/Clinton first foot steps in Afghanistan had their "additional troops" chasing Taliban and Al Qaeda into Pakistan such that we had to chase them there too?

How is Clinton’s foreign policy guidance so different around Arizona than around Afghanistan? Both are about illegal in America drugs and trafficing and dangers and harm to Americans with cross border transits? How can she be so "different" on two such issues and even have the Clinton "two-fer" of having cut two trillion from spending during their eight years now deserving, finally, some public litigation?

It seems by Tuesday America may have decided it as likely or more likely to "the fault of the past eight years of Clintons" than still just distracting "all the fault of the past eight years of Bush"?

And, so too: The passing of "Hillarycare" recently was still done and done with a clear and certain disregard to the expressed and measured will of majority of Americans on a bill or two of so discussed for near a year?